Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Corn, Soy Yields Gain Little From Genetic Engineering: Study
WASHINGTON - The use of genetically engineered corn and soybeans in the United States for more than a decade has had little impact on crop yields despite claims that they could ease looming food shortages, a study released on Tuesday concluded.
A farmer harvests his corn crop near Morris, Illinois. The use of genetically engineered corn and soybeans in the United States for more than a decade has had little impact on crop yields despite claims that they could ease looming food shortages, a study has concluded. (AFP/Getty Images/File/Scott Olson) "A hard-nosed assessment of this expensive technology's achievements to date gives little confidence that it will play a major role in helping the world feed itself in the forseeable future," said the report by the Union of Concerned Scientists.
The study evaluated the effect on corn and soybean crop yields of genetically engineered varieties commercialized in the United States over the past 13 years, examining peer-reviewed academic studies that date back to the early 1990s.
"Based on that record, we conclude that GE (genetic engineering) has done little to increase overall crop yields," it said.
The report said genetically engineered soybeans account for 90 percent of soybeans grown in the United States, while genetically engineered corn accounts for 63 percent of the US corn crop.
"Overall, corn and soybean yields have risen substantially over the last 15 years, but largely not as a result of the GE traits," the report said. "Most of the gains are due to traditional breeding or improvement of other agricultural practices."
It found that corn and soybeans that were genetically modified to increase their tolerance to herbicides "have not increased operational yields, whether on a per acre or national basis, compared to conventional methods that rely on other available herbicides."
Corn modified with genes from Bt, or Bacillus thuringienisis, bacteria for resistance to several kinds of insects did provide higher yields, but the study estimated the increase at between 0.2 and 0.3 percent a year on average over the past 13 years.
Overall corn yields in the United States have increased an average of about one percent a year, it said.
"More specifically, US Department of Agriculture data indicate that the average corn production per acre nationwide over the past five years (2004-2008) was about 28 percent higher than for the five-year period 1991-1995," it said.
"But our analysis of specific yield studies concludes that only 4-5 percent of that increase is attributable to Bt, meaning an increase of about 24-25 percent must be due to other factors such as conventional breeding," it said.
- Posted in
26 Comments so far
Show AllAnd, what nobody wants to talk about is the much higher incidence of chromosome damage found in mice who eat GMO (genetically modified organisms) like USA corn (chickenfeed) and USA soybeans (Tofu anyone?)
Chances are you are all eating bacteria that continues to leech pesticide chemicals in your intestine all for the profit of Dow chemical and Monsanto corporation courtesy the First Idiot, son-of-a-president we ever survived: the bushmonkey.
By putting a texas dimwit with no background in food safety in charge of the FDA: Crawford, we all stand the increased chance of developing cancers like leukemia.
The above is all just my opinion only, based on my readings in scientific journals.
TJ
"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." - Thomas Jefferson
Increased yields has always merely been the sales hype to sell GM food products. The main reason Agri-business has such lust for GM food is copyright. If they can get farmers to replace traditional seeds with their patented product, they then have a monopolistic stranglehold that Robber Baron era moguls would drool at the thought of.
You took the thoughts right out of my head. The idea of copyrighting or patenting genes is as silly as claming title to a star.
Yes, think of Monsanto as the Microsoft of Agriculture. Except their modified DNA can pass their patented technology on to non-modified organisms, spreading their royalty base even wider.
More than that. They have bought up seed companies. Regardless of whether GMO seeds are used, Monsanto would like to have a monopoly on seeds. Think of the power.
Reading the article and comments reminds me how much my eating and shopping habits have changed. I eat mainly organic and have become a semi-vegetarian. In checking ingredients, I look for what is not there. The package I am looking at now says "No GMOs, No trans fats, No preservatives, No MSG".
NPR had a story on this same issue this morning, and included the use of pesticides etc in the discussion. Daniel Zwerdling (Science correspondent) focused on India and the farmers there who had decided some years ago to change from their millenia-old farming practices and embrace modern agri-business practices such as GMOs and pesticides. Crux of the story: these new practices have NOT worked, many farmers have been driven into poverty and suicide, and the environmental damage is immense.
Here is a link to the story, if anyone is interested:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=102944731
Thanks for that link.
Here's a quote from the article:
"It's like a disease that is catching on in the world," says Suba, "building a life that is like a house of cards."
Sounds like the American way of life to me.
Like the comment I posted for the Article "Germany Bans Cultivation of GM Corn" I would have to Suggest that ALL of you either Google or buy or rent and watch "The World According to Monsanto" and also "the Future of Food" and it wouldn't hurt if you watched the film "king Corn" although this last one is a little more light hearted than the first two mentioned. Trust me after watching either or both, "The World According to Monsanto" and or "The Future of Food" You are going to seriously reconsider they way you eat or what you eat. Scary stuff folks, important stuff too.
visit my blog @ http://enemyartistkristofer.blogspot.com
Ah yes. "The World According to Monsanto" is on my list. I'm gettin' there.
What a surprise! Who would have thought that? Apparently tens of
thousands of protesters that took to the streets since the beginning
of the 'commercialization' of agriculture.
What goes around comes around. Thanks to Karma. All those greedy
perpe-traitors need to be given cell space.
The wrecklessness of the handling of the food supply chain and its
subsequent sacrifice on the altar of Mammon is unmatched. It is all
the same MIC, Agricultural Industrial Complex, Made Off Industry,
they are all like the worst disease mankind ever contracted. Not
to forget the Sick-keeping Insurance Industry.
Then again, that could be good news if only the criminals who are
responsible for all this mess get to taste their own medicine.
Feed the so called 'lawmakers' GMO from the morning to the evening.
That way we might rid ourselves of the worst threat humankind was
ever exposed to: governments.
Huh? Capitalism is the worst threat. You can't grow forever. You can't make stuff without regard responsible to its complete life cycle (for example, make poison and not account for the cost of disposing of it because "someone else" - we - all pay for that).
Government is only a problem when it's an extension of Capitalism, or more accurately, pretending to be something it's not (of-by-for the people). Sorta like what we got. That's why it's got to change.
Do we agree on the notion that Capitalism is just another 'form' of
government, like Communism, or Socialism? Government is like a foul
language. It is not important what dialect it speaks. The content is
what counts.
We will all find out what it means to be 'run' by governments that
have much like 'Frankenstein's Monster' started to develop a self
dynamic that will be hard to stop. To find out what I mean You should
try to protest 'without precursing notice' against corporate greed
and environmental destruction. A thousand protesters find themselves
confronted with ten thousand baton wielding, shielded, tazering
criminals calling themselves the keepers of law and order.
It is all a scam from the beginning until its very end. Government
is an invention of the 'haves and have more', not of the people.
Since 20 years I propagate the idea to replace the flawed election
practices with more just measures to make sure we are not owned by
the 'company stores'. Parliamantary Democracy based on the Jury duty
principle. Elections are the surest way of keeping the powers out of
reach for the common people by brainwashing the electorate and outright
fraud in the process.
Even normal corn and soy based products aren't good for you. Both make you fat and unhealthy. High-fructose corn syrup is one of the reasons for the obesity epidemic in the US. Soy is known to mimic the hormone estrogen and causes weight gain and has made some people with thyroid problems very sick. Some say there are breast cancer linkages to Americna soy consumption. Both of these products are filler materials and massive quantities of soy and corn are grown in the US in our industrialized agricultural system. We need to go back to the family farm model...its healthier, its organic, its local, and its good for you. This is the bigger picture.
The real increase in yield for GM crops, has been in the profits for Agri-business.
Yes, and there in no 'looming' hunger at the Hugh Grant (Monsanto CEO) house.
People introduced rabbits and Hawaiian toads to Australia, thinking they would be helpful. They were an environmental nightmare. Kudzu ate the South. The Asian longhorn beetle is eating up trees now. Some idiot brought the Gypsy Moth to America, where it damaged the predominant oak forests pretty effectively.
That's what putting pesticide genes from worm-eating bacteria into corn and letting it interbreed with the neighbor's corn does. It starts an environmental nightmare. Make that 1000 different nightmares these days. Monsanto should be tossed in jail until its beard reaches its knees. Oh, all our jailtime laws don't apply to corporations or their investors, they get out of jail free.
What a bunch of baloney this article is!!! Maybe it would be a good idea to interview a real farmer who has used non-GMO seed for many years before switching most of their acreage to GMO with outstanding results. Farmers do not fall for fancy ads without knowing how much their yields are increasing as farming is not guesswork any more.
In addition to higher yields, there is the advantage of not having to use dangerous chemicals either by spraying fields for pests, or applying poisons to the soil to prevent all kinds of problems developing. You might as well try to stop the wind from blowing as stop farmers from using GMO corn as there is no comparison in results attained.
It is interesting that statistics are obtained from France and India, for example, as there is certainly better knowledge of the matter in our own country. It is not just the seed companies and related industries that are aware of the benefits of GMO use, and our own agriculture department no doubt knows a little more than foreign sources about how it is working in the USA.
There are probably one hundred or one thousand other causes of cancer besides the remote possibility of GMO seed being the big worry. Organic farming is great on small acreages, but maybe we should try life without all modern conveniences as they may be harming us also. Cell phones can be dangerous for example, but it appears people want them anyway, so we have many areas to be concerned with.
"Health Risks
Currently there are only a few dozen peer reviewed studies completed on the health effects of genetically modified foods. The results of many of these studies strongly challenges the industry and government standard of substantial equivalence.
[edit] Gene transfer
As of January 2009 there has only been one human feeding study conducted on genetically modified foods. The study involved seven human volunteers who had their large intestines removed. These volunteers were to eat GM soy to see if the DNA of the GM soy transferred to the human gut bacteria. Researchers identified that three of the seven volunteers had transgenes from GM soy transferred into their gut bacteria.[43]
"This transgene was stable inside the bacteria and appeared to produce herbicide-tolerant protein... In the only human feeding study ever conducted on GM crops, long standing assumptions that genes would not transfer to human gut bacteria were overturned. The findings should prompt immediate comprehensive follow-up tests to determine the implications for health among both the general population and at-risk groups."[44]
[edit] Allergies
Since 2004, some cotton workers in India have experienced allergic reactions to only Bt cotton, and not to other conventional varieties. The longer the workers were exposed to the genetically modified Bt cotton, the more severe their symptoms were. An investigation concluded that reactions included: "mild to severe itching; in severe cases, eyes also became red, and swollen"[45] One doctor reported that he had seen approximately 150 cases of allergies to Bt Cotton in 2005, and another 100 in 2004. [46]
In the mid 1990's Pioneer Hi-Bred began to genetically modify a soybean that would take a gene from a Brazil nut in the hopes that soy would increase the production of the amino acid methionine. While this particular new crop was being designed for animal feed, as the case of StarLink corn clearly showed, that food only for animal consumption will undoubtedly enter the human food supply. Pioneer Hi-Bred decided to test the new GM soybean with the Brazil nut gene for allergens as many people are allergic to Brazil nuts. To the company's surprise in three separate tests (radioallergosorbent testing, immunoblotting, and skin-prick testing), all studies showed that individuals allergic to Brazil nuts were also allergic to the new GM soybean.[47] "In trying to build a better soybean the company had made a potentially deadly one."[48]
In 1999 soy allergies in the United Kingdom increased from 10%-15% in a single year. Coincidentally, GM soy entered the UK shortly before 1999. One study using skin prick test showed that of the 49 subjects, 13 individuals experienced a positive reaction to non-GM soy, 8 individuals reacted to the GM soybeans, and "one patient had a positive skin test result to GMO soybeans only."[49]
[edit] New Diseases
In the 1980s one brand of L-Tryptophan that was genetically engineered and created by Showa Denko in Japan, caused a major deadly epidemic in the United States. Symptoms of those individuals whom contracted this disease, later named Eosinophilia-myalgia syndrome (EMS), included: swelling, coughs, rashes, physical weakness, pneumonia, breathing difficulties, hardening of skin, mouth ulcers, nausea, shortness of breath, muscle spasms, visual problems, hair loss, difficulty with concentration, memory and paralysis.[50] Discovering the cause of EMS required numerous coincidences which suggest that adverse reactions to genetically engineered foods may be difficult to identify. In 1984, progressively the more genes that Showa Denko used for L-Tryptophan supplement production corresponded to the higher levels of contamination. "The final strain, which caused the most illness, contained five separate transgenes.".[51]
The specific bacterial culture used to synthesize this tryptophan had recently been genetically engineered to greatly increase tryptophan production. The increased concentrations of tryptophan in the fermentor may in turn have led to increased production of trace impurities. Also, shortcuts had been taken in the purification process to reduce costs. For example, a purification step that used charcoal adsorption to remove impurities had been modified to reduce the amount of charcoal used. It is possible that one or more of these modifications and/or the environment for manufacture allowed new or greater impurities through the purification system. More than 60 different impurities were identified in the L-tryptophan lots which had been associated with cases of EMS.[52][53][54][55]
An alternative explanation for tryptophan associated EMS has recently been proposed.[56] Consumption of large doses of tryptophan leads to production of metabolites, some of which may interfere with normal histamine degradation. Furthermore, excessive histamine activity has been linked with blood eosinophilia and myalgia.
Some individuals from the FDA also disputed that it was not the genetically engineered L-Tryptophan that was to blame, but rather tryptophan itself; however, this theory was unsubstantiated. According to Edwin Kilbourne, who investigated EMS with the Center for Disease Control (CDC), if L-Tryptophan itself was to blame, "all tryptophan products of equal dose produced from different companies should have the same effect."[57] However, Kilbourne insists that there is currently no evidence to support this claim. According to the CDC, the supplement produced by genetically engineered bacteria killed about 100 people, 1500 became permanently disabled and caused between 5,000 and 10,000 to fall sick."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food
That was an impressive rebuttal. Thank you for that.
Yes a very impressive rebuttal. Thank yoiu ezeflyer, I had not read that one. My info was from dubious rodent trials submitted to FDA in the approval process.
"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." - Thomas Jefferson
Ignorance is Bliss, right?
Your statement:
"In addition to higher yields, there is the advantage
of not having to use dangerous chemicals either by
spraying fields for pests, or applying poisons to the
soil to prevent all kinds of problems developing."
is obviously offset by the wikipedia article as quoted below:
"Resistant to pesticides (tolerating crop spray - this
way a farmer can use amounts of pesticides which would
normally kill the plant, without harming it)."
Great, isn't it? So the farmer can use higher amounts
of pesticides which would normally kill the plant, meaning
that higher amounts of toxins are released into the
environment. Environment. From the fields washed into
the rivers, from the rivers transported into the ocean.
That's where the increased amount of pesticides ends up.
Unfortunately the organisms that are exposed to these toxins
are not genetically modified to tolerate ANY pesticides,
like corals and with them the whole food chain up to the
fish we eat.
Talking about where the wind blows from.
“The greatest danger lies not in ignorance but in the illusion of knowledge”. Albert Einstein
Genetic engineering must be stopped because it is based on false assumptions:
False Assumption # 1
Inserted genes will produce a single protein.
Actual Status
Inserted foreign genes might create multiple proteins, with unpredictable consequences
Quote
“The fact that one gene can give rise to multiple proteins . . . destroys the theoretical foundation of a multibillion-dollar industry, the genetic engineering of food crops.”
(the late) Dr. Barry Commoner, senior scientist at the Center for the Biology of Natural Systems at Queens College
"You cannot define the function of genes without defining the influence of the environment. The notion that one gene equals one disease, or that one gene produces one key protein, is flying out of the window."
Dr. J. Craig Venter, Time's Scientist of the year (2000).
False Assumption # 2
The proteins created by inserted genes will act exactly the same way in a new organism.
Actual Status
Foreign proteins may be folded improperly or become attached to other molecules, which could change their properties. Likewise, gene expression may be affected by the genetic disposition of a host organism, or even the environment
Quote
The process of inserting foreign genes can damage the structure and function of the host’s DNA, switch genes on or off, create never-before-seen genetic sequences, and render the genome unstable.Dr. Peter Wills of Auckland University warns, “an incorrectly folded form of an ordinary cellular protein can under certain circumstances . . . [duplicate itself] and give rise to infectious neurological disease.” (>> prions causing “Mad Cow Disease” resp. CJD are the result of incorrect protein folding)
False Assumption # 3
Inserting foreign genes is precise and non-disruptive.
Actual Status
The process of inserting foreign genes can damage the structure and function of the host’s DNA, switch genes on or off, create never-before-seen genetic sequences, and render the genome unstable.
Quote
The BBC’s Tomorrow’s World Magazine says: “Genetic engineering is generally a HIT AND MISS affair. The genes may be inserted the wrong way round or multiple copies may be scattered throughout a plant’s genome. They may be inserted inside other genes—destroying their activity or massively increasing it. More worryingly, a plant’s genetic make-up may become unstable. . . . Rogue toxins may be produced or existing ones amplified massively. Such problems may only arise hundreds of generations after the crops are originally modified.”
False Assumption # 4
Foreign genes will not transfer to bacteria in the digestive system. Use of antibiotic resistant genes are therefore safe.
Actual Status
Foreign genes jumped to human gut bacteria in just one meal of a GM soy burger and soy milkshake
British scientific researchers have demonstrated for the first time that genetically modified DNA material from crops is finding its way into human gut bacteria, raising potentially serious health questions (> antibiotic resistance)
False Assumption # 5
The promoter that keeps foreign genes switched on, only influences that one gene.
The promoter is stable and works only with plant organisms.
Actual Status
The promoter may turn on native genes “over long distances” up and down the strand of DNA—even genes on a different chromosome. This can create a flood of proteins with unpredictable consequences. Some scientists theorize that the promoter might even switch on dormant viruses that are deposited along the DNA.
Studies indicate that the promoter may create a “hotspot” in the DNA, whereby the whole DNA section, or chromosome, can become unstable. This can cause breaks in the strand or exchanges of genes with other chromosomes.
Research indicates that the promoter can influence animal genes. Some scientists believe it can transfer to internal organs and accelerate cell growth, possibly leading to cancer
False Assumption # 6
Nutritional properties are unaffected by genetic modification.
Actual Status
Significant differences in nutritional content between GM crops and their natural counterparts have been observed.
“Roundup Ready beans were significantly lower in protein and the amino acid phenylalanine. More disturbing were [increased] levels of the allergen trypsin inhibitor in toasted Roundup Ready meal. . . . Lectins in Roundup Ready beans almost doubled the levels in controls. What might be the result of consuming foods with high levels of trypsin inhibitor and lectin?
False Assumption # 7
Genes and their expression will act in isolation, not impacting other metabolic processes.
Actual Status
Insertion of foreign genes and their new proteins may create complex, unpredictable interactions, not well understood. Similarly, inserting two or more foreign genes into the same plant may also cause interactions that have not been studied.
University of Georgia’s Dr. Sharad Phatak says, “When you insert a foreign gene, you are changing the whole metabolic process. . . Each change is going to have an effect on other pathways. Will any one gene kick off a whole slew of changes? We don’t know for sure”. Genetic engineering results in the formation of higher than normal concentrations of certain enzymes and products; these could provide the basis for the synthesis of higher levels of toxic substances.
-----------------------------------------------
The expression of a gene is the result of a very complex interaction with the cell, the whole of the organism and is even influenced by external conditions. The stability of a gene is influenced by the condition of the organism. The genes are actually not well delineated entities as believed formerly. They may change character in response to the state of the organism and the same gene may even give rise to different proteins under different conditions. Therefore one cannot expect to be able to "tailor" the traits of organisms in a predictable way by insertion of "desirable" genes.
Genetic “engineering” is a great fallacy because it is based on a reductionist and mechanistic view of complex biological and ecological systems and the hubris that we can “control” nature:
More INFORMATION:
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/FAQ.php
http://www.soilassociation.org/Web/SA/saweb.nsf/9f788a2d1160a9e580256a71002a3d2b/9ce8a24d75d3f65980256c370031a2d0/$FILE/SeedsOfDoubt.pdf
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Monsanto_and_the_Campaign_to_Undermine_Organics
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/banGMOsNow.php
http://www.navdanya.org/earthdcracy/index.htm
http://www.actionbioscience.org/biotech/altieri.html
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2008/11/12
http://www.prorev.com/genetic.htm
http://www.psrast.org/intro1.htm
(Physicians and Scientists for the Responsible Application of Science and Technology)
Thank you, my good friend tocqueville22,
The information you have imparted, I have printed out. I promise to make sure, as long as I live, that it will always see the light of day.
Nothing in the history of life is more important, as I'm sure you know.
Bless you my friend.
TJ
"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." - Thomas Jefferson
Like kernelz, I'm a gm farmer too. There is good to this technology and perhaps bad, I don't know. We are subject to thousands of chemicals and their interactions. Scientists measure in parts per billion (and probably trillion). If we could somehow set up studies of all these chemicals and all the possible interactions (trillions of possibilities and studies), we would likely find billions or trillions of harmful effects. For those of you who are truly horrified by this technology, I would suggest changes to patent and copyright laws might slow (but not stop) the use of this burgeoning asset to today's farmers. Now it's time for me to finish up on my planter, cause I'm gonna plant gm corn today!
Almost all of the combinations of which you write are not self-replicating, nor do they invade like pollen, for example, does.
Greg,
withdrawn.
it's not your fault; Monsanto and Dupont force farmers to buy GMO or get left behind.
But I feel you should boycott GMO for all our sakes.
TJ
"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." - Thomas Jefferson